The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an interfaith couple requesting a waiver of the mandatory 30-day notice period required for marriage solemnization under the Special Marriage Act. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the court cannot direct authorities to deviate from statutory provisions, as the law explicitly mandates a 30-day waiting period after the publication of the marriage notice.
Case Background
The couple had submitted their marriage notice to the marriage officer in Kalkaji on May 11, scheduling the ceremony for June 19, following the statutory waiting period. However, the groom secured employment abroad and needed to join by June 10, prompting the couple to seek an early marriage in the first week of June. They argued that the delay would cause significant hardship.
Court's Ruling
The court emphasized that personal inconvenience, however genuine, cannot override mandatory legal requirements. It noted that Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act explicitly states that a marriage can only be solemnized after 30 days from the notice publication. This waiting period is not merely procedural but a deliberate legislative framework.
The order stated: “Once the statute itself contemplates solemnisation of marriage only after expiry of the prescribed period, this court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot direct the authorities to act contrary thereto, particularly when deviation from the statutory mandate itself entails penal consequences under the Act.”
The court further observed that the legislature is presumed to be aware of potential hardships in individual cases, and courts should not rewrite or dilute statutory requirements based on such exigencies. Granting the relief would amount to directing authorities to act against the express legislative mandate.
Key Takeaways
- The 30-day notice period under the Special Marriage Act is mandatory and cannot be waived.
- Personal hardship does not justify deviation from statutory compliance.
- The court cannot direct authorities to act contrary to the law.
This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to legal procedures, even in cases involving interfaith couples or employment constraints.
